eda_lib_cbb_open_project_in_editor

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns: '执行本操作将直接丢失所有未保存的数据' (executing will directly lose all unsaved data), which is a critical behavioral disclosure. It also states the return type as Promise<boolean>. However, it does not clarify the boolean's meaning (e.g., success) or whether any confirmation is shown, leaving some ambiguity. Still, the data-loss warning is a strong transparency point.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise: a signature line, a one-line purpose, and a single critical remark. Every sentence carries weight; the data-loss warning is front-loaded and essential. No filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and no complex schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core purpose, parameters via the signature, return type, and the major risk. However, it does not explain the boolean return value semantics (e.g., true on success) nor the optional windowId parameter's usage. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, these omissions could leave an agent uncertain about how to interpret results or how to target a specific window. The description is mostly complete but has notable gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides the exact function signature 'openProjectInEditor(cbbUuid: string, libraryUuid: string)', which adds meaning beyond the generic schema description of 'args' as a JSON array. This clarifies the parameters and their order. The parameter names (cbbUuid, libraryUuid) are self-explanatory. However, the optional windowId parameter from the schema is not mentioned in the description, so the agent may not understand its relationship to the args array. Overall, it adds value but leaves some gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action: '在编辑器打开复用模块工程' (open reusable module project in editor). The verb+resource is specific and the tool name itself (eda_lib_cbb_open_project_in_editor) matches. It distinguishes from sibling eda_lib_cbb_open_symbol_in_editor, which opens a symbol, by focusing on project/module opening. The signature line also reinforces the exact function call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for opening a CBB project, and the sibling name indicates a symbol variant, but there's no explicit 'use this when...' guidance. The remark about data loss serves as a caution, not a usage directive. An agent might infer the use case but without explicit alternatives or conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.